I suppose you think it was a shame that the gestapo of the Kennedy government made it so hard for the 'free market' to discriminate against black people in the 50's and 60's despite there being demand for it?

Oh sure... This is the same thing. Give me break. There is no comparison. And as a person of color I can tell you I do not go where I am not wanted.

The Kennedy laws were correct to stop govt sponsored discrimination. Private business should do what ever they want. They are the ones who loose the business, and professional contributions of any minority they discriminate against. And over time they will loose in to the competition that doesn't discriminate. The Free Market will fix it, if govt doesn't intervene to coerce anyone.

Ah so you would not take any kind of legal action if you applied for a job and were turned down on the basis of your colour? What if instead they told you that it wasn't colour but rather it was because you were too ugly, is that different?

Agreed, it's not government force that would stop me from being a consumer of a company that had racial discrimination.

But there are certainly many public facing jobs where actractiveness is required. Think also of many hollywood roles. A romantic comedy where the couple is unattractive is unlikely to get much business.

NO I wouldn't. I don't want to work for someone who would not like me because of my color but was obligated to hire me by law. Is that the kind of environment you want to work?

I'd rather know upfront who is the idiot who arbitrarily would discriminate against me, than actually working for him. All of this legal action stuff is only good for lawyers, politicians and opportunists.

At the bottom level, what you need in a waitress is the ability to carry trays without dropping them, do elementary mathematics, and remember what people order (so no waitresses with lesions upon the hippocampus). For cheaper resturants and coffee shop that is all you need.

For more expensive and high classes resturants that can afford to pay their staff more, the next level of waitresses should have all of the traits above and be attractive and know how to behave properly in the company of high class customers.

High quality waiters and waitresses seperate themselves by the merely competent not by being more intelligent, but by being more attractive and being able to project the right attitude.

Thanks for the insight..it was just an angle for gender dynamics at work in public places.

Yes, it does magnify your point of view about cheaper places for eating and dinning and classy ones.Each one demands its own protocols while visiting as lone person or in group gathering of friends and relations.

Can't agree that physical attractiveness is genetically determined just like intelligence. The former can be improved with a lot of hard work - gym, good diet, make-up, investing in hair-dresser/clothes/plastic surgery. There is little you can do about the latter.
So all in all, discrimination based on the appearance has more merit than based on the intelligence

In the US beautiful people serve you either in coffee shops(and restaurants)or in Chippendales clubs, while the clients usually look ugly.
I said that to some waitresses in a Starbucks when I studied in California and they all fell in love with me.I´ve never had to tip them, cause I´m "romantic"(try it, its a good line)...
But I was actually chocked, beauty there is directly related to money, people wanna buy it, they want a piece of that, disturbing.
Here in South America usually servants are not beautiful, but the clients usually are, or at least the chances to meet beautiful people being served is much higher than to find beautiful people serving.There are some exceptions, like when you go to some international brand show or party(or car exhibitions), then they copy the US and hire just beauties. But most of the time this is not important in chains, as even their uniform always makes them look worse.
But I´ve noticed one thing here, when the economy goes bad, pretty girls work in fancy clothes stores everywhere. When the economy goes well, they "disappear", because they are hired to do more "intelligent" work, in offices. I guess some married and bored executives can sure use that stimulus.
I read somewhere that NY has a "waitresses beauty index", to measure the economy shape. When you are being served by pretty waitresses, the economy goes bad, and when you are being served by ugly ones, the economy goes really well.
At the end, it seems that you can´t have it all...

"But I´ve noticed one thing here, when the economy goes bad, pretty girls work in fancy clothes stores everywhere. When the economy goes well, they "disappear", because they are hired to do more "intelligent" work, in offices."

May be you are observant, or just plain well read. There have been many studies which confirm this.

One of the most misused words in the language is "discriminate". If there is one thing that racists and other prejudiced people do not do it's discriminate.
For example, if I interview several people for a job and then select those most qualified I am discriminating, based soleley upon their qualifications.
However, if I eliminate several of the applicants because of their race, religion sex, whatever, I am being undiscriminating. I am treating all members of that race, religion or sex exactly the same.
So, discrimination on suitable grounds is a good thing but a lack of discrimination, eg all members of that group are the same and won't (or will) be considered, is a bad thing.

I will be making a movie about 11th century vikings
I hope they don't force me to include an asian, a african and whoever else into the cast, so that quotas are adhered to (fat ladies I can do, no problem).
Imagine a chinese guy, in a horned helmet, swinging an axe and crying odes to Odin in old norse...
if you did as much as smiled, you belong in JAIL.

yep movies should only have average looking people in them, the olympics only open to those of average ability otherwise it is discrimination. why can't I go to the olympics? it's not fair! There should be a law against this!
Everyone should wear the same clothes, go to the same schools, buy the same goods and services. Whay hasn't someone tried that yet....

Remember when the Clinton administration went after Hooters, who features busty waitresses in short pants? Janet Reno, the attorney general, was widely mocked when hairy men wearing low cut shirts were shown in ads asking if this is who you want to see serving your beer, chicken, wings, and clams at Hooters.

Here in Chile where I live scantily clad women serve coffee to businessmen and women. No one complains. It is refreshing to live in a place without so many laws directed at one's thoughts and opinions.

No - it is pretty reasonable to assume that there is no correlation between beauty and merit. An over-abundance of pretty people in the job as compared to the general population therefore indicates discrimination by attractiveness over merit.

Also, more to your point, they tend to be smarter because they receive more positive reinforcement and encouragement during their formative years. Mothers, although they would never admit it (and it is most likely unconscious), tend to favor their more attractive offspring.

Height is not a proxy for beauty. Studies show that facial (and to a lesser extent) body symmetry is a proxy for beauty. Height also correlates to pay to a greater extent with mean than women.

Any non merit based discrimination should of course be illegal in most industries (except sport and beauty contests for example).

In answer to your second point you are wrong again. Studies show a correlation between the wealth of parents and the financial success of their offspring. This has nothing to do with attractiveness and everything to do with the parents.

While it might be market demand that dictates to hire an attractive, young person to cater customers, I believe the main criteria should be how they are services, not by whom. I wonder when this discrimination based on skin color, looks, body type, language, and hundred other bullshit comes to end? Having a job is a human right, so preventing someone from accessing it is a crime. Who cares who serves your food or coffee? White, black, tall, short, you're just here for a service, not for going to bed with them. Don't you think of getting old some day???

Having a job is a human right? Seriously..?
I wish it was, but its not. Having a job depends on the state of the economy, your talents/abilities and how much in demand they are, luck and myriad other factors. There is no workable system in the world that can guarantee employment to everyone who wants it.
And when many equally qualified people compete for a given position, its a fact of life that the better looking ones will have an advantage.
I do agree that race or gender ALONE should not disqualify anyone for a job and doing so should be criminal. But different jobs require different qualifications; it may be physical strength, math skill, a good voice, an ivy league degree or even looks. If ML's marketing position revolves around having attractive servers, that's "fair" enough.
ALSO, ANY JOB CREATED HELPS EVERYONE IN THE JOB MARKET. When MaryLou hires a 1000 attractive women as servers, it also creates equivalent openings elsewhere (assuming these women quit existing jobs to join ML.)
Alternatively, they reduce jobless pool by a 1000 good looking applicants, improving chances for the remaining job-seekers.
Personally, I admire your position. Hope you will support Cafes and establishments that don't discriminate on looks and more power to you.

A human right. Hilarious! The only "rights" humans have are the ones their society grants them (or, you may say, which they grant themselves, as members of society). Human rights are an artificial construct we've designed to make our lives more tolerable.
The notion of human rights changes from society to society. And I don't know of many societies which count "having a job" among these rights.

To: GG109 and JacobM1 - yes, having a job is both a human right to supply him/herself for living, and an obligation to contribute to the society.

Looks do play a role in hiring in modeling agencies, night clubs and porn industry. But I don't believe someone with necessary skill sets, physical strength, etc for performing the job should be denied employment. While cafes and establishments such as Abercrombie claim that it's part if their "brand image", they're not Chippendales or a modeling firm.

The article illustrates the absurdity and inhumanity of endlessly dictating and directing human activities with the unlimited and totalitarian excuse that "social justice" always requires another rule,law, ban,punishment,tax,crime or Czar! Let humans be humans and stop pretending the most power hungry, vain and foolish among us has any business dictating to the rest of us how to live!

The fact that attractive people have advantages over less attractive just goes with our DNA! We are not talking about the ancient horrors of religious bigotry or slavery or the residuals of slavery like race discrimination. Women are doing better than men now that they are not subject to rape and other domestic violence at will. Once you have addressed the worst, be wise and stop playing Philosopher King when you are illiterate about the classics anyway!

Exactly! If attractive people have a natural advantage in the service industry, let them enjoy it. Are we discriminating against stupid people because doctors, engineers, and executives are predominantly intelligent?

Should we promote dumb people to lead our countries, so they don't feel left out?

Or maybe we should let crooks manage finance, since honest people would be the obvious choice? Oh wait...

Some jobs require intelligent people, others require strong people, and others require attractive people. If someone is too dumb to get a job as a lawyer, no one would say that is discrimination. Similarly, some people are too ugly to work in the certain sectors of the service industry. Why would someone pay close to $5 for a cup of coffee from a fat or homely barista? People go to resturants and coffee bars at least as much for the service and atmosphere as for the actual food and drink. It is the job of the staff to add to that atmosphere by being, among other things, good looking.

So you go to coffee shops to eye up waitresses as part of the atmosphere?
Personally I go to spend time with friends and to buy a decent cup of coffee and I would rather the barista was a skilled coffee maker than a scantily clad woman thanks.
Hiring attractive people over merit is lowest common denominator marketing and isnt worthy of civilised society.

Yes, eyeing up waitresses is part of the atmosphere and can be a great conversation starter when dealing with new clients.

The issue isn't whether or not the waitresses are scantily clad; that's a bit beyond my taste for a coffee house though I can't condemn anyone else for desiring that. It is about what are the qualifications of being a service person. Virtually any person over the age of 15 is capable of serving coffee or food, or working as a sales clerk or cashier in a super market. Coffee shops use coffee machines. A person would have to be awfully incompetent (or inexperienced) to mess up making someone a cup of coffee. Barista's and other service people distinguish themselves by their superficial interactions with a customer. Most people would rather have a young and attractive woman hand them a coffee with a smile then some older gentleman or some such. As such, good looking people are in a better position to serve and please the customers. If we define merit, in this context, as the ability to fulfill the requirements of your job; attractive people are more meritorious in those types of service jobs.

I live in China and there is high-end grocery store by my home that only hires attractive young women. All of the cashiers and all of the clerks hovering around are aesthetically pleasing. It contributes to a positive atmosphere and most normal people would appreciate that. But you can't have that in America because apparently it is discrimination against heavy set individuals who'd love be cashiers.

Morality controls purchases all the time. Sanctions against companies in countries that break international law or discriminate against certain people groups. Rules have to be followed to do business and one of those is that employment is merit based and not influenced by the colour of your skin or how attractive you happen to be, is that such a difficult concept?

It isn't immoral to enjoy being in an aesthetically appealing environment. Even if you believe that it is, we don't want the government trying to socially engineer us. If I want to go to a coffee with beautiful waitresses, who are you to tell me I can't?

It will be illegal in the US to discriminate for employment on the basis of IQ.

IQ like the color of your skin or physical attractiveness is substantially determined by your genes so who gives these corporations run by evil doers the right to actively discriminate against the simple folks after all democracy is all about one man one vote isn't it?

"IQ like the color of your skin or physical attractiveness is substantially determined by your genes"

Actually, not sure how much your IQ is determined by your genes - I don't think that's the right analogy to make. (Remember that one of the arguments against slave emancipation was that blacks as race don't have the IQ to be free citizens).

Genes have significant influence I am sure, but unless you're mentally deficient in the physiological sense, you can always study hard, apply yourself and gain intelligence - provided you apply yourself and society gives you the chance to get a basic education.

Come to think of it, attractiveness is also not completely gene-based. Staying fit, eating well, skill at applying make-up, dressing-sense and mannerisms all contribute significantly. After all, most of ML's "hot" waitresses are not really super-models, just generally good looking.

PS: I do agree that its "fair" for the service industry to discriminate based on looks and employers should also be free to discriminate on IQ, (irrespective of whether anyone thinks these factors are gene-based or not).